INDER SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR, SONEPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners impugns the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector, dated January 12, 1976 and August 11, 1976 respectively whereby his application under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) as applicable to Haryana, has been dismissed.The primary challenge to these orders is on the ground that issue resolved by these orders, that is, whether the respondents were in authorised or unauthorised possession of the suit land, stood settled vide order of the Assistant Collector dated November 30, 1965 (Annexure P.1) whereby it was held that they were in unauthorised possession of the land. According to the petitioner this earlier order of the Assistant Collector was not implemented or got executed for the reason that one of the respondents, namely, Yudhishter, just after the passing of that order, became the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The plea raised by the petitioner now is that in the face of the order Annexure P.1 the respondents could not be allowed to justifiably plead that they were in authorised or lawful possession of the land and to that extent the earlier order did operate as res judicata between the parties. As against this the case of the private respondents is that the two orders, Annexure P.1 and P.3 being not between the same parties, the earlier cannot be said to operate as res judicata against them. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter I find that the stand of the respondents is not sustainable.

(2.) It is beyond dispute that the general principles of res judicata which are based on public policy - that every litigation must attain finality at one stage or the other - are applicable to Special Tribunals and forums also. It, therefore, cannot justifiably be pleaded by the private respondents that the earlier finding given by the Assistant Collector vide his order Annexure P.1 has either not to be given any weight or the same does not operate as res judicata against them.

(3.) The next submission of Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the respondents is that since the present petitioner was not a party to the earlier order Annexure P.1, he cannot possibly either take advantage of the same or be allowed to plead that the finding recorded in that order about the nature of their possession, would not operate as res judicata in these proceedings. Apparently this submission of the learned counsel is devoid of merit in the light of the phraseology of Explanation 6 to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or even on general principle contained in that explanation. It cannot be disputed in the light of the provisions of section 7 of the Act that an application for the dispossession of a person in wrongful or unauthorised possession of Shamilat Deh land can be filed by the Gram Panchayat or Block Development and Panchayat Officer, or Social Education and Panchayat Officer or their nominee or by any inhabitant of the village.Sub-Section (1) of this section grants the same status or locus standi to these persons as against the person in unauthorised or wrongful possession of the Shamilat Deh land. It is thus, patent that a move made by any of these persons or individuals is in a representative capacity, that is, to dispossess a wrongful or unauthorised occupant of Shamilat Deh land or in other words, to utilise the Shamilat Deh land for the common purposes of the village. None of these individuals, may that be Panchayat, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Social Education and Panchayat Officer or their nominee or the inhabitant of the village, has any personal interest in the matter. The petitioner in the case in hand while moving the application which resulted in the passing of the impugned orders Annexures P.3 and P.4 did not claim any personal interest in the property and his claim or assertion that the land in occupation of the private respondents was a Shamilat Deh land and they were in unauthorised possession of the same, was as an inhabitant of the village and, therefore, as a representative of the common cause of the village or the Panchayat.